Jim Abbott

[Grants And Loans, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Auberge des Gouverneurs, the hotel the Prime Minister showered with grants and loans in the months prior to the 1997 election, has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Given that the taxpayers are on the hook for the money, will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the millions of dollars he obtained from Canadian taxpayers to finance this failed business venture?

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my speech I would like to say something about what is happening in my family at this moment. My daughter-in-law, Lainy and my son Dan are in the process of delivering a child. This will be our fifth grandchild and somehow I have a feeling that Lainy is doing most of the work. I am very excited and just waiting for the phone call to find out how things are going.

With that in mind, the topic today is for my grandchildren and perhaps for other members' grandchildren. This is about the future of the children of Canada.

I would like to gently scold the government for half a second. I happened to note in an exchange a few moments ago between the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough of the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberal member for Scarborough—Rouge River. The Conservative member was absolutely correct in pointing out that this is not a Liberal initiative. It is a shame because this is a serious problem and perhaps the government does need to be prodded. The government should be more focused on the future of our children. I commend the member for Langley—Abbotsford who has been absolutely tireless on this issue.

The motion is that a special committee of the House be appointed to consider the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs in Canada and make recommendations with respect to the ways or means by which the government can act alone or in its relations with the governments at other levels in the reduction of the dimension of the problem involved in such use. This is a scourge and is a tremendously serious problem for us within our society.

Illicit drug use contributes to crime and law enforcement costs in several ways. It also breaks down much of the fabric of our society.

However with respect to the costs, first there are the costs of enforcing drug laws. Second, chronic or dependent use of so-called hard drugs, like heroin, cocaine, crack, speed, LSD and other strong hallucinogens, is often implicated as a contributory cause of property crime particularly burglary and theft. Third, drug use contributes to crimes of violence. Assault, homicide and other crimes of violence have resulted from turf wars in the illicit drug market. Illicit drug users are disproportionately involved in incidences of spousal and child abuse. Even cannabis has been implicated as a contributory cause of crime with regard to impaired driving.

Criminal offenders have disproportionately high rates of illicit drug use. Up to 80% of offenders report using illicit drugs during their lifetime. That is an important number. There is a connection there. We cannot get away from it. Fifty to seventy-five per cent show traces of drugs in their urine at the time of arrest and close to 30% were under the influence of drugs when they committed the crime for which they were accused.

Drug addicts committed to treatment often have criminal records. There is clearly a relationship between illicit drug use and crime but it is not always casual. The fact that a crime is committed by someone using illicit drugs does not necessarily mean that the drug use caused the crime to be committed. However there are several plausible casual connections between drugs and crime.

First, there is the pharmacological effects of the drugs. Each drug has its own track, its own trace and its own way of impacting the drug user. There is a relationship between drug consumption and violence for certain illicit drugs. Cocaine, other stimulants and PCP could induce violence by the loss of ego control, deterioration of judgement, induction of irritability and impulsiveness or the production of paranoid thoughts.

Second, there is a need for addicts to commit crimes to support their drug use. There is some argument that it is part of a drug culture, but when people become addicted to heroin and cocaine, they are unresponsive or their consumption of the drug is totally unresponsive to price. They simply go out and do more break and enters, or do more property offences or perhaps even become involved violently with people.

Third, addicts adopt a deviant way of life that accounts for both their drug use and their criminal behaviour. As I mentioned before, there is a relationship between those things.

Fourth, crime results from systemic violence inherent in the illicit drug trade. We are familiar with different turf wars that occasionally happen. We are also familiar with the fact that in many very strong ethnic communities in Canada, people who have come to Canada to build a better life for themselves and for their children are preyed upon by others within their own ethnic community who are involved in the drug trade. It is a very serious problem for law-abiding citizens, no matter what their origin.

There are police costs. According to figures I have in front of me, in 1992 the attributed costs of policing were estimated at $208.3 million for illicit drugs and approximately $168 million was expended on the enforcement of drug laws per se.

There are court costs. There are correction costs because the people involved in these property offences and other things end up being put away.

Finally, there is the issue of customs and excise and the costs involved there. Obviously we have to have borders that to the best of our ability will interdict the flow of drugs in and out of Canada.

Now, speaking of in and out of Canada, let me read a paragraph from the city of Toronto Drug Prevention Centre's article about the truth about marijuana. It says:

According to population surveys, past year cannabis use among Toronto adults remained relatively stable in 1999 at about 10%. Among Toronto students, past year use of cannabis increased from 9% in 1993 to 18% in 1995, levelling off at 19% in 1997. The 1999 survey found past-year cannabis use among 26% of junior high and senior high school students in Toronto, the highest rate reported since the survey started in 1994.

In 1998 almost one in five, or 18%, of drug treatment clients cited cannabis as a problematic substance.

The truth about marijuana is that it is not the innocuous substance that many of our hippie generation grew up with. The truth about marijuana is that it is cultivated and has a potency that was absolutely unimagined before. The truth about cannabis is that it has the potential to create tremendous serious societal problems.

Let me conclude with this statement. Often young users come from a background of poverty, physical and sexual abuse and substance misuse, particularly alcohol. Even before any influence by their peers, they are very much at risk of developing problems with alcohol or drugs. Experimentation with drugs and altered states of consciousness can start out innocently and often does not lead to harm. However young people can develop severe drug dependence and can be suddenly forced to navigate a complex, criminal environment to obtain the substance they are physically dependent upon to make it through each day.

I am sure the motion by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford will be supported by all members because it is with the young people of Canada, it is with the very basis of our Canadian society that we must wrestle with these problems, and the buck stops here.

[Private Disability Insurers, May 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a result of a question that I asked the transport minister a number of weeks ago with respect to the Trans-Canada Highway. I am concerned primarily about the stretch of road that goes through my constituency from Revelstoke to Field. For the most part the highway is not a divided highway.

Recognizing that this is a national issue, I have an immediate local perspective. Of the 15 million vehicle movements on the Trans-Canada Highway in the area of which I am speaking of, there were 150 fatalities. By comparison, on the Coquihalla Highway, which was constructed in 1986, 25 million vehicle movements had unfortunately 66 fatalities. One fatality is too many, but the point is that 15 million movements have 150 fatalities for a two lane road while 25 million movements have only 66 fatalities for a divided highway.

The federal government has a responsibility here because it enacted a policy over a period of time that had a direct impact on the number of vehicles on the road. When the highway was first built in the sixties there were only 1,500 vehicle movements a day. Today, on an average day, there are up to 10,000 vehicle movements per day.

Under this government, much of the freight that used to be on rails is now on trucks. As a consequence, the number of 18-wheelers using that road has multiplied tenfold. This has equaled a ramp up in revenue to the government. The government presently takes $700 million a year from the province of British Columbia in federal excise tax.

The government tells us that it does not believe in designated spending but it seems to me that the finance minister believes in designated collection. When he increased the federal excise tax by 1.5 cents he said that he needed to collect more money to help do away with the deficit. There is a little bit of a dichotomy here where he says on one hand that he does not believe in designated spending but that he does believe in designated collection. I wonder about the sincerity of that statement because now that the deficit has gone why has the extra 1.5 cents per litre not gone?

Indeed, the excise tax is simply a cash cow that is collected from the trucking companies, automobile companies and, ironically, also from the rail companies for the freight going back and forth through the province of British Columbia.

I would like to do a reality check on what we are looking at in my constituency. In the Kicking Horse Canyon, which is just east of the town of Golden, it would cost $5 million to straighten out a 200 metre stretch of road. One million rock bolts would need to be put into Heather Hill, which is west of Golden, because there is an unstable mountain. There is already an ongoing slide occurring on that mountain. In spite of the fact that the slides have already started to come down this year, there is still no medium or long term plan.

There is a federal responsibility here that was recognized back in the 1960s when the Trans-Canada Highway was initially constructed. The average cost of constructing the highway across Canada in 1960 was $100,000. The cost was $1 million through British Columbia, ten times as much money. As a consequence, the funding arrangements were taken into account at that time.

The people of Revelstoke, the people of my constituency and the people of Canada are demanding that the federal government come to talk about this issue with a big fat wallet.

[Private Disability Insurers, May 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I noted with interest the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I understand that there are efforts currently under way to address this issue.

The difficulty I am having on behalf of my constituents is that it is grinding. People are losing their homes. I am sure my constituency is no different than that of any other member. People in our constituencies are losing their homes after entering into contracts in good faith at a financial institution. In many instances, they enter into large borrowing contracts on their residence. A mortgage is likely the largest contract in which they will ever be involved in their lifetime. They sign the documents at an institution that, by the way, also happens to have a majority share or sole ownership of the insurance company with which they are also contracting.

Then, upon a cataclysmic event in their lifetime, they no longer are able to make mortgage payments because they are truly disabled. We then have one of the twins turning around and saying that they did not sign the right paper. My office does not have the ability to help these people. It is from this sense of frustration that I have brought the motion forward.

The parliamentary secretary knows that I have a great deal of respect for him as an individual. This is not at all a partisan issue. I do recognize that there is duplication and overlap, and that Ontario has an ombudsman. I do recognize that there are financial services provided for the people in my province of British Columbia. However, when we talk about the marketplace, about convergence and about task forces, we are not talking about the people who are currently being removed from their homes through no fault of their own. I find that frustrating beyond belief. It is a human tragedy that is happening far too often in our country.

I am having a lot of difficulty with the comment made by my respected friend from the Progressive Conservative Party who said that the private sector would take care of it. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might find it a tad amusing, not laughable but amusing, that a member of a party who believes so strongly that the government should get out of the faces of Canadians would be a minimalist and would be advocating the role of an ombudsman. Well I am and I am doing it without any shame because there are people in Canada who are presently not being treated fairly or equitably. It is from that sense of frustration that I have brought the motion before the House.

I respect the fact that the committee which selects these private members' motions and bills has determined that this will not be a votable bill. I will not go through the charade of asking for unanimous consent to make it votable but I do hope the government will see the sense of urgency that I have attempted to bring to the debate. It is my hope that the government will indeed put some fire and energy behind the task force.

[Private Disability Insurers, May 15th, 2001]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)( b ), a legislative committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill that would create the position of ombudsman to oversee private disability insurers in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting topic because of the amount of time that it ends up taking up not only in my office but, I am sure, in your office and the offices of all of the other members of parliament.

Most MPs who come to Ottawa try to raise issues of importance to their constituents, which is what I am doing. However, as I say, the beauty of this one is that I think it is an issue of importance to all Canadians and all members of parliament trying to represent them at the national level. Today I want to raise the issue in the House with this motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(b), a legislative committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill that would create the position of ombudsman to oversee private disability insurers in Canada.

There is a terrible injustice being inflicted upon some Canadian citizens by private insurance companies that are refusing to honour their policies and pay benefits to people who suffer with long term disabilities.

Some of these cases involve Canadians who have put their own lives at risk in careers with the armed forces, the RCMP and the peacekeepers. Others are what we would call ordinary Canadians who have worked hard at their jobs as nurses, teachers and loggers to provide for themselves and their families.

In a nutshell, the problem is that Canadians in the workplace who find themselves with severe illnesses or disabilities which prevent them from performing their duties of employment and who then turn to their insurance companies, under which they believe they have insurance to assist them in such unfortunate circumstances, suddenly find the support is not there. Thus, the stress and anxiety they are under from their illnesses or accidents, along with the reality that they can no longer work to provide for themselves and their families, is multiplied by the process of and treatment by their insurance company.

Of course one must preface this by saying that it is not true of all claimants and not true of all insurance companies, but surely all members who are listening would agree with me that two, three and four times a week in every one of our constituency offices it happens that people are having difficulty with their disability insurance.

This is what my constituents have told me about processing their claims. First they are informed that their only option is to go on short term disability, from 26 to 52 weeks, only after they can prove with medical evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that they are severely disabled and unable to perform their duties at their present employment. At the end of the short term disability period, their insurance benefits are cut off and they are again required to go through the process to prove that they are still disabled. At that point they may be allowed to go on long term disability or be granted another short term period, but even if they are granted long term disability they will be subject to a review, usually every year. That means their benefits will again be cut off and they are required to go through the whole process over and over again with the same insurance company.

Within the past month I was made aware of two cases of constituents of mine who have received foreclosure notices on their homes from their banks due to cancellation of disability insurance benefits. These were on applications that had been completed at the bank, the lending institution, on behalf of the insurance company. They have led to disqualification of benefits, resulting in the foreclosure action by the bank.

Neither the insurance company nor the bank in these cases would take responsibility for the intent of the insurance. In other words, in these cases the bank had the customer sign documents insuring the mortgage but later the insurance company claimed it was the wrong document or application and refused to accept it and process the benefit.

The bank's response in these cases has been to discipline the employees to satisfy the insurance company. However, the banks have failed their customers, who in these cases have paid the premiums attached to the mortgage for years and believed the coverage was in place should they require it.

The intent of the insurance company and the bank to provide this coverage needs to be addressed. Do they intentionally provide wrong applications to their customers? I think not, but do the insurance companies not provide proper training to the bank employees? Perhaps. Do the insurance companies not review these applications and advise the banks that they have not processed the correct application and that their clients may not be entitled to benefits as a result? With the banks and insurance companies happily accepting their clients' insurance premiums each month, does it not obligate them to pay out benefits?

Surely if the funds are flowing through to the insurance company there is an expectation, an intent. If the paperwork is incorrect that is where an ombudsman would come in, because the banks and insurance companies end up working on and detailing only the words that are on a piece of paper.

Apparently the fact that people are paying their premiums does not really make that much difference. The question is: What can we do about it? What recourse do average Canadians have against banks and insurance companies when they find themselves faced with the circumstances that I have just described? Their insurance benefits denied, their only option is to accept it or hire a lawyer and fight for their rights. Talk about David and Goliath.

Of interest to all Canadians at this point is, if the claim is approved at this point, the insurance companies require the employee or victim to apply for early Canada pension benefits thus reducing the insurance companies benefit payable. In other words, the insurance company is downloading onto the reserves Canadians have paid into for their retirement pensions. Also of interest is that at one time all pension benefits received from an insurance company were in addition to any other pensions received such as the CPP and WCB.

The insurance companies will review each stage and suggest other employment opportunities that can be pursued so they can lower their benefit. Quoting from an insurance group's policy, it states:

“Totally disabled” shall mean, for the first 30 months of a total disability, an employee is wholly and continuously disabled by illness or accidental bodily injury which prevents him from performing the essential duties of his normal occupation. After the first 30 months of total disability, “totally disabled” shall mean he is unable to perform the essential duties of any occupation for which he is reasonably fitted by education, training or experience.”

Note that when the insured obtained the insurance it was insured at his present job.

The tactics of periodically discontinuing benefits or taking away our financial support mechanism and requiring one to continually prove he or she is incapable of working is in itself questionable. We are aware of cases where the insurance company has hired private investigators or sent their investigators out to spy on and record all activities of their clients for extended periods.

I would like to quote from letters from my constituents who, according to their doctors and medical specialists, were disabled but were unable to convince the bureaucrats working for the Canada Pension Act. The insurance providers look for any unfavourable decision from CPP so they can suspend or deny benefits. The letter states:

I had been on Long Term Disability—for over two years, at which point (the company) informed me that I had to apply for Canada Disability. This upset me at the time as I didn't consider my disability to be permanent. I am doing everything in my power to get better. It was explained to me that this is a necessary step in my health care management, and that I would qualify for benefits until such time as I was well. I was told (the company) would “top up” the benefits from CPP to my present level, if in effect, I qualified for disability pensions.

The next letter said:

Both companies denied my benefits, and I had to go through the appeal process. CPP has since denied my appeal, and I am awaiting (the company's) decision. I highly suspect (the company) is waiting to hear CPP's decision so that it can be used against me.

What we are looking at here is the fact that there is a patchwork quilt with which our constituents are faced. Much of the law that covers this particular activity in our society is federal law yet its administration is at the provincial level. Yet when we go to the provincial level, there is no ombudsman function on the part of any of the provincial governments. This unfortunately ends up falling between the cracks of federal and provincial jurisdiction. We recognize that getting an ombudsman is not the full answer because in effect we can still end up with fighting and delays and things getting in the way of the ombudsman to go ahead and work on behalf of the people.

The bottom line to the exercise is this, if people find themselves disabled and at that particular point no longer able to be gainfully employed, they now has a number of concerns.

The first concern is obviously their physical or mental incapacity to be able to perform at an ordinary level. That is a concern that would relate to everyone around them, particularly within their family unit.

Second, they will not have any income. Therefore, all their assets will be threatened and their ability to provide for themselves and their families will be threatened. It is a highly stressful situation because the two things work together in a symbiotic relationship to make both of those issues work. Then, if they are denied the benefits that they were fully anticipating by paying into a benefits program, there is a third compounding effect to their very difficult situation.

I am sure, Madam Speaker, as I said to the previous gentleman in that chair, that even in your office and in all our offices we deal with these things on a weekly basis.

The point of my motion is to tell the federal government that we have a problem and that there is no solution to the problem. The people who no longer have a job or the resources, and in many cases do not have the emotions to be able to handle the situation, require some help. To ask them to put down a $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 retainer for a lawyer to represent them is absolutely facetious. It simply cannot happen.

Therefore, with the motion I am simply asking the government take a look at this gaping hole between the federal jurisdiction of legislation, the provincial enactment that relates to the legislation and find some way to help our constituents.

This is an opportunity for all of us in the House, on a totally non-partisan basis, to bring a balance to the people of Canada which balance the rights of the individual against the rights of these very large corporations that are all, I am sure, obeying the law but nonetheless represent a very formidable force in the face of ordinary citizens. I say that collectively, on a non-partisan basis, we should be working together to represent individual Canadians.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of Bill C-10 without a doubt is a very laudable intent. In taking a look at the condition of our oceans and waterways, not only in Canada but indeed around the world, the environment has to be protected. There can be absolutely no question about that. There are many areas of degradation which have occurred and continue to occur.

The intent of the bill is a good one. Coming as it does though under the auspices of the heritage department, we have some idea of what the heritage department is capable of doing, particularly with respect to preservation in parks. We therefore have an idea of some of the challenges that face the department, indeed some of the challenges that have been created by the department for people who also have the laudable intent to protect the environment under parks.

We should briefly take a look at the template or pattern we have. We know Canada's oldest national park, Banff National Park, is under a tremendous amount of pressure, created in no small part by human beings. The resulting pressure, which has been created to the changes of the flora and the fauna, has impacted the wildlife in the area. What has been the response of the park and what is some of the history relative to Banff and indeed the four mountain parks?

If we look at the history of Heritage Canada and Parks Canada, we again realize that with laudable intent they have attempted to create a situation where we could have interaction among human beings and the flora, fauna and wildlife in the parks.

In trying to create that situation, they have taken action which has allowed the build up of ski hills, riding and walking trails and a whole tourist infrastructure over a period of time. If we look at Banff Park as an example, believe it or not the town site generates almost three quarters of a billion dollars a year in gross domestic product. It is a gigantic amount of money which comes into Canada, and in no small part from Europe and particularly from the U.S.

In developing the projects around the park, care was taken over a period of time to get a proper balance to ensure that the park would be preserved for future generations of Canadians. What has occurred though, and it has become clear, is that some of the provisions to take into account the pressure which this would create on the environment within the park have some distinct deficiencies. As a consequence, some gapping holes have been left in what was formerly the very pristine wilderness area, not the least of which of course is the location of the town site of Banff itself. This has a direct bearing.

Under Bill C-10, Parks Canada would be responsible for the enactment for the use of the legislation. As a consequence, if we look at the way it has its work historically on land, what would the results be in terms of marine conservation area?

First, it is a fact that, if we were to take a species like the grizzly within the confines of Banff Park, clearly the habitat of the grizzly has been very seriously negatively impacted. As a consequence there are fewer and fewer grizzlies in that area. Furthermore, with the number of visitors going into Banff Park it is undesirable that there would be an increased amount of interaction between grizzlies and human beings. The two are simply not compatible.

What does that mean relative to Bill C-10? If we look at the number of interests with respect to ocean and Great Lakes areas, we will find that commercial and recreational interests are already in place in many of these situations.

In trying to come to an accommodation of the environment, the flora, fauna and the animals contained within a park, it strikes me that Parks Canada has swung the pendulum absolutely to the opposite end of the spectrum. Instead of now saying we have created the situation where human beings, tourists, from all five continents can come and enjoy what we have, because of these experiences there will be a cost to the wildlife in the area. There is a very strong swing to the entire idea of absolute conservation.

There has been a movement to ban any human interaction into the back country within the four mountain parks of Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay. Yoho and Kootenay are parks that are in my constituency. These back country areas basically account for 90% of the park. If we look at it through a very simplistic lens, it is probably a commendable thing to do, but it really is not because it does a couple of things.

It means that there is far more pressure brought into the remaining 10% of the park with far more wear and tear. I will give an example. Many of us have carpets in our homes or we have seen carpets in commercial areas. If we had people walking over the entire carpet it may last for many years, even 50, 60 or 70 years. Theoretically a carpet could last that long even with a great number of people walking over the entire area. The problem is if we confine them to only 10% of that area we have wear marks and have to replace the entire carpet.

That may be a weak analogy, but it presents a picture of what is currently happening within our park structure. With the correct intention of not wanting interaction in the back country human interaction in over 90% of the area would be excluded. That is a very laudable objective, but it has not been fully thought out because of the wear and tear on the last 10%.

We are trying to learn from what we are doing on land within Parks Canada to see how we might apply these things when it comes to lakes, rivers and oceans. The difficulty is that under the legislation there is a sufficient amount of discretion on the part of the government. We may see government whims gaining speed and decisions swinging back and forth like a pendulum.

People have some very legitimate concerns and a commitment to preserving what we have in terms of aquifer, species, flora and fauna that exist below the surface of the water. These people share the concern of Parks Canada and governments. They are saying that if we have not learned how to correctly do what we need to do on land, what will we be doing with respect to the parks or the water area?

I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton North. Taking a look at intent is one thing, but we should also keep in mind the legislation and history. For example, we created a situation in Kootenay National Park, which is in my constituency, that does not make any sense. At one point there was no road there. The road I am referring to is now called Banff-Windermere Highway 93-97. It ends up circling its way down from Lake Louise, up over Storm Mountain, down into the Kootenay River, up over the top and into Windermere.

There is a bottleneck at Sinclair Canyon, which is right between Radium Hot Springs and the town of Radium itself. Sinclair Canyon is exceptionally narrow and only wide enough for a two lane highway. As a matter of fact a river went through the canyon that has rock going about 200 to 300 feet straight up in the air. We put in a two lane highway at that particular point and had to dig the river underneath the highway.

When the national parks built Radium Hot Springs, it encouraged service providers and private industry to build chalets, bungalows and tourist accommodations so people could enjoy the hot springs. These people have ended up having a constant, neverending battle that has been increasing in noise to the point where they are now talking about removing those facilities at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Why? They say it is because it is a wildlife corridor.

It could not have been a wildlife corridor in the past, particularly for the larger animals, without the highway there. Putting in the highway meant that the animals could now, at very low traffic times, walk back and forth through Sinclair Canyon while dodging the 18-wheelers and the ore trucks.

We will be spending $4 million to $6 million to buy out the tourist service providers. These service providers are people who have been paying taxes and fees to Parks Canada. Not only will we spend $4 million to $6 million to remove those facilities but in addition we will lose the revenue from the facilities once we have removed them. This is the concern that I have with Bill C-10.

I realize this will be the fifth or sixth time that I have said this but I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that the Canadian Alliance is in favour of the intent of Bill C-10. The difficulty is that once the bill is enacted it would be under the control of Parks Canada which has a history of not managing its assets very well.

For example, there are people on the Queen Charlotte Islands who have seen the establishment of a park on the islands. They have also seen the husbandry of the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to the west coast trail and all these things. Parks Canada's track record makes people concerned and nervous about the commercial access to the Pacific Ocean, and I understand their nervousness. It does not have a good track record of consistency and of following through on a prescribed course of action.

I have consistently accused Parks Canada of using the word consultation as a noun instead of a verb. It says that it had consultation. No, it did not. It came out and let people talk but it had already made up its mind. Consultation is a noun, not a verb. It is not a form of action. On the basis of the history of Parks Canada, it is with a tremendous amount of trepidation and concern that we look at Bill C-10.

There are literally hundreds of examples but I would like to present one or two more.

Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba has an area with a lot of natural grasses. Back in 1910 someone decided to plant some spruce trees. Those spruce trees did very well and grew to be very tall, straight, clear spruce. This wood is almost priceless. Each tree is counted in the thousands of dollars. Then some people from Parks Canada said that the trees did not really belong there, that we should get rid of them. Not only did they chop them down and uproot them, they burned them. Does that make sense? Hundreds of thousands of dollars in trees were chopped up for firewood so the grasslands could be restored.

Let us assume that the Creator did not intend there to be trees there and that someone planted them. By the same token, we could go to Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland, which is an absolute wonder. It is a wonderful place to go and I recommend it to all Canadians if they want to see something absolutely spectacular and be treated wonderfully by the people in Rocky Harbour and Corner Brook. The park has moose like we have never seen before. Mr. Speaker, I know you have very large moose in your constituency but we could have a contest with these moose. They are that big and there are about 7,000 moose.

Gros Morne is kind of interesting. It is like the top of a mountain that has been taken off. It is perfect moose country full of marshland. In its brilliance, in the same way that someone planted the spruce trees, Parks Canada decided to import moose to Newfoundland, a place they should never have been. As a consequence, Gros Morne is literally being eaten into extinction by the moose.

Someone said that there should be a culling of the moose. Heaven forbid, we could never do that. Parks Canada can chop down the trees and burn up invaluable wood, but it cannot have anything to do with the management of that area because moose are animals that walk on the earth. The inconsistency of Parks Canada in its management, as I stated, gives us great pause for concern with respect to Bill C-10.

[Highways, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended the 10th anniversary Traffic Safety Conference in my constituency in Golden, B.C.

While 95% of traffic accidents are caused by drivers, national statistics prove that divided highways reduce accidents and save lives.

The cost of building highways in my constituency is absolutely gigantic. A $5 million project in the Kicking Horse Canyon will construct only 200 metres of the highway.

The Trans-Canada Highway between Salmon Arm and the Alberta border, with a traffic count of over 15 million, saw 150 fatalities. In the same period the Coquihalla highway, with 25 million, had only 66. These statistics unfortunately will be proven again during the upcoming Victoria Day holiday weekend.

The transport minister knows full well that the federal government contribution to national highways is inadequate. The question is this: what is it going to take to get this government to recognize it has a responsibility to ensure the upgrade of the Trans-Canada Highway? This is literally a life or death situation.

[Division No. 79, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I missed the previous vote. I will be voting with my party and opposing the motion.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about a related issue. I will be speaking specifically to the NDP motion in just a second.

I wish to clarify something, because I have had this question asked of myself having been the chief critic for the Reform Party and now the Canadian Alliance. It is the issue of the truthfulness of the Prime Minister's Office with respect to his involvement at APEC and the APEC pepper spray events.

I wish to clarify and to be very precise. The protection provided by the police forces for international persons who were in Quebec City, as they did at APEC and as they did at every other event in Canada, was excellent. There have been some events where they have gone over the top, but when one is in a riot situation there will be situations where people will go over the top.

My position and the position of our party with respect to APEC is that the riot and the pepper spraying that went on there had nothing to do with the actions of the police. That will be something that the public complaints commission will decide under the leadership of the public complaints commissioner. It had everything to do with whether the Prime Minister's Office was forthcoming about whether the Prime Minister was actually involved in the event. That is an important distinction to make.

I would like to use two examples to speak specifically to the NDP motion. I would like to use two examples of how chapter 11 is supposed to work and why it is there. They are pure fabrications.

In British Columbia we have a very large multinational corporation from New Zealand that has a stake in our forest industry. We also have, as a result of the low exchange rate the government constantly gives us, a major B.C. corporation which has been taken over by a U.S. concern.

These companies enter Canada with funding operations and capital. Do they have the right as foreign owners to anticipate, given the rules with respect to logging and forestry practices and all of the other things that surround the rules and regulations, they would be treated in exactly the same way as a Canadian based corporation would be treated?

We have Canadian workers working for Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. and Fletcher Challenge. Should those workers and corporations be treated any differently than the workers working for West Fraser, Interfor or Canfor?

The names I am bandying around are to show that within the forest industry in British Columbia there is a potpourri of ownership. I submit that any domestic or foreign corporation investing in the forest industry in British Columbia should anticipate that the rules and regulations of the B.C. forest practices code will be applied equally.

It makes no difference which corporation by virtue of its ownership is doing it. It makes a big difference to the workers within the forest industry, which is so important to British Columbia. It is equally important to the workers in every other industry in Canada.

I will go to the other extreme. We should expect in return what we give. I assume that under the FTAA there is an article 11 type of mechanism included. What difference would that make for the people who are in the mining industry in my constituency?

My constituency happens to produce the majority of the metallurgical coal for export from Canada. There are about 12,000 people directly impacted by coal production in my constituency. There is also at the tag end of its life what was the largest lead-zinc deposit in the entire Commonwealth in Kimberley and under Cominco.

Why would we want to see a chapter 11 on behalf of people working in the mining industry in my constituency? If Teck, Cominco, Canadian Pacific or any of the Canadian based corporations were to go with their mining expertise to Chile, Ecuador, Peru or Argentina, I would assume that having explored and having found an ore deposit the corporation would go into production. It would then end up putting a quarter of a billion, a half a billion or perhaps a billion dollars into the infrastructure required to actually work the ore deposit.

Let us assume that we do not have an article 11 in the FTAA and one of these nations very flippantly decides to bring in some special regulations against the Canadian based company. Suddenly this quarter billion, half billion or billion dollar investment by the Canadian corporation is standing in a very cold draft because one of these countries decided to pay special attention to the Canadian company.

Corporations must have the ability to protect themselves against capricious acts on the part of foreign governments. This is not to impute any ill will. It is simply to give some feeling of security when corporations invest funds.

I will extend that further. What does it mean to the workers at the mines in my constituency? In this fabricated case I will assume that the full billion dollars invested in Chile, Ecuador, Peru or Argentina was suddenly at risk. By putting the billion dollars invested in that ore deposit at risk, suddenly the cash flow of the multinational Canadian company is in jeopardy. It is in peril.

What would the company do? The company may very well have to pull back on its operations in Sparwood, Fernie, Elkford or any other place in Canada.

This is true of any corporation where we are talking about the free flow of capital around the world, of Canadian corporations having the opportunity to be able to invest as they see fit and of growing their businesses as they see fit. Corporations want to know that their money will not be in jeopardy.

Members of the NDP are always talking about the worker. I agree that the working people in Canada are exceptionally important. These people would be protected by virtue of the fact that their employers, by virtue of chapter 11, would have more surety knowing what would be happening within their domain of commerce.

It is only logical and reasonable that when money is to be invested, whether it is people coming into Canada with money or Canadian money going out of Canada to invest for the betterment of the Canadian company, those corporations would know what are the rules and that the foreign governments would not be able to act in a capricious way against them. That is all chapter 11 is about.

I am surprised that my friends in the New Democratic Party are not more prepared to work for some surety for the working people of Canada.

[Ethics Counsellor, April 25th, 2001]

Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The call is for an independent public inquiry. We have the ethics puppy dog who has been to South America, Australia, China, and Europe, all on the taxpayer dime. He has never found his way to Shawinigan, Quebec.

This is why Canadians are demanding that we have a full independent public inquiry. When will we get it?